Forced Landing Marree 14/11/2010
mikewill,
The second engine in a piston twin was never meant or designed to be a get out of jail card. It was just designed to give you more options (prolong a glide, under ideal conditions, perhaps a positive rate after takeoff etc). Think of the aircraft as having one engine that is divided into two power plants.
Transport category aircraft (>5700 kg) are designed and mandated under legislation to perform on one engine. This is subject however to correct technique being utilized (especially a turboprop).
If you want to write a story, I suggest researching cadet schemes and low hour inexperienced Pilots occupying right seats of airliners. This is far more dangerous than a conservative Pilot flying a piston twin engine aircraft, who understands and plans for its limitations.
EDIT:
I see you have posted the legislation for light piston aeroplanes. The 1% climb gradient and maintaining altitude on one engine at 5000 feet etc is performed in a brand new aeroplane, with brand new engines, by a test Pilot with sound technique in ISA conditions (sea level, 15 degrees etc)
It is not performed in a 30 year old airframe (think Holden Kingswood) with a low time Pilot in Australian summer conditions.
If you consider a PA31 with a blue line of 106KIAS, at 1% that is 106 feet per minute. It will travel roughly 10NM by the time it reaches 1000 feet. The protection of an aerodrome for a CAT B aeroplane is only 2.66nm from the runway threshhold. It will generally not be able to climb to the 25MSA or the LSALT with that type of climb performance in the safe zone with factory new performance, let alone a 30 year old aeroplane!
The second engine in a piston twin was never meant or designed to be a get out of jail card. It was just designed to give you more options (prolong a glide, under ideal conditions, perhaps a positive rate after takeoff etc). Think of the aircraft as having one engine that is divided into two power plants.
Transport category aircraft (>5700 kg) are designed and mandated under legislation to perform on one engine. This is subject however to correct technique being utilized (especially a turboprop).
If you want to write a story, I suggest researching cadet schemes and low hour inexperienced Pilots occupying right seats of airliners. This is far more dangerous than a conservative Pilot flying a piston twin engine aircraft, who understands and plans for its limitations.
EDIT:
I see you have posted the legislation for light piston aeroplanes. The 1% climb gradient and maintaining altitude on one engine at 5000 feet etc is performed in a brand new aeroplane, with brand new engines, by a test Pilot with sound technique in ISA conditions (sea level, 15 degrees etc)
It is not performed in a 30 year old airframe (think Holden Kingswood) with a low time Pilot in Australian summer conditions.
If you consider a PA31 with a blue line of 106KIAS, at 1% that is 106 feet per minute. It will travel roughly 10NM by the time it reaches 1000 feet. The protection of an aerodrome for a CAT B aeroplane is only 2.66nm from the runway threshhold. It will generally not be able to climb to the 25MSA or the LSALT with that type of climb performance in the safe zone with factory new performance, let alone a 30 year old aeroplane!
totally agree on the cadetship opinion green goblin,
and you do bring up a good point about the ability to climb to the MSA, however what you say about 30 year old aeroplanes not being able to perform is still concerning... the regulations dont state that the 1% climb gradient only applies to brand new aeroplanes with brand new engines.
while of course a brand new aeroplane is going to perform better than a clapped out one, this doesnt mean that the clapped out one is exempt from meeting the minimum performance requirements required by CASA. I would have thought that an aeroplane, while not expected to perform as well as it did when it was new, would still be required to perform to the minumum standards required by the law. do you agree?
and you do bring up a good point about the ability to climb to the MSA, however what you say about 30 year old aeroplanes not being able to perform is still concerning... the regulations dont state that the 1% climb gradient only applies to brand new aeroplanes with brand new engines.
while of course a brand new aeroplane is going to perform better than a clapped out one, this doesnt mean that the clapped out one is exempt from meeting the minimum performance requirements required by CASA. I would have thought that an aeroplane, while not expected to perform as well as it did when it was new, would still be required to perform to the minumum standards required by the law. do you agree?
mikewil
An aeroplane is like a car. The initial production units are used as test beds for certification. Once the type has proved it can meet legislative requirements, it is given the rubber stamp and certified in that locality.
It does not have to re-prove that it can meet these parametres, just like your car does not have to be tested for ongoing crash worthiness, emissions or safety features. A Holden Kingswood would not pass modern crash and emission standards, but under a grandfather clause, is still eligible to be driven on our roads. Aeroplanes are the same. They were certified many years ago, would probably not pass certification if they had to be certified today and are not subjected to ongoing performance assessments (like your car).
A Pilot, is trained, and paid, to understand the limitations of the aeroplane, plan for the worst and operate the aeroplane in a safe and efficient manner. That is what our job entails.
GG
An aeroplane is like a car. The initial production units are used as test beds for certification. Once the type has proved it can meet legislative requirements, it is given the rubber stamp and certified in that locality.
It does not have to re-prove that it can meet these parametres, just like your car does not have to be tested for ongoing crash worthiness, emissions or safety features. A Holden Kingswood would not pass modern crash and emission standards, but under a grandfather clause, is still eligible to be driven on our roads. Aeroplanes are the same. They were certified many years ago, would probably not pass certification if they had to be certified today and are not subjected to ongoing performance assessments (like your car).
A Pilot, is trained, and paid, to understand the limitations of the aeroplane, plan for the worst and operate the aeroplane in a safe and efficient manner. That is what our job entails.
GG
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Sydney
Age: 58
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mikewil,
Good point about enroute climb performance.....consider this.
In Aus an aircraft must meet the required enroute climb performance to be granted a CofA. However it is not a requirement for each aircraft to demonstrate this, only first of type on the register!
I remember..many moons ago back in the UK, I owened a single engine 1971 four seat retractable tourer and every 3 years it had to demonstrate, demonstrate(repeated for effect), its certified climb performance to renew it's CofA, and all this for a private CofA. Imagine the requirements for a M/E charter CofA. I am not familiar with the current UK CAA requirements but I'll bet they are not relaxed.
This seems very tough and expensive to comply with, and it was, but what cost is safety? Is the UK over regulated or are we under regulated? and another point, If you think a PPL or CPL is expensive here, compare the cost of UK General aviation to ours?
J
Good point about enroute climb performance.....consider this.
In Aus an aircraft must meet the required enroute climb performance to be granted a CofA. However it is not a requirement for each aircraft to demonstrate this, only first of type on the register!
I remember..many moons ago back in the UK, I owened a single engine 1971 four seat retractable tourer and every 3 years it had to demonstrate, demonstrate(repeated for effect), its certified climb performance to renew it's CofA, and all this for a private CofA. Imagine the requirements for a M/E charter CofA. I am not familiar with the current UK CAA requirements but I'll bet they are not relaxed.
This seems very tough and expensive to comply with, and it was, but what cost is safety? Is the UK over regulated or are we under regulated? and another point, If you think a PPL or CPL is expensive here, compare the cost of UK General aviation to ours?
J
I'll also add the 1% climb gradient and 5000 feet certification requirements are assessed under ISA.
If you use the POH and wind up the temp to a mid 30s Australian summer temp or a typical northern Australia day - you will see negative rates of climb even in a brand new aeroplane.
If you as a journalist a concerned about this, what aviation in Australia needs is increased depreciation rates on aircraft. It will then become economical to replace them on a more regular basis, as it is now, aeroplanes hold their value and a 1970s aeroplane is still worth the cost of a house in many cases.
GG
If you use the POH and wind up the temp to a mid 30s Australian summer temp or a typical northern Australia day - you will see negative rates of climb even in a brand new aeroplane.
If you as a journalist a concerned about this, what aviation in Australia needs is increased depreciation rates on aircraft. It will then become economical to replace them on a more regular basis, as it is now, aeroplanes hold their value and a 1970s aeroplane is still worth the cost of a house in many cases.
GG
Green Goblin,
Fair crack of the whip mate, I don't think mikewil is looking for a story. He asks a very sensible question which is becoming a real concern now. I feel very lucky that I never suffered an engine failure after take off in a piston twin, because unless I was empty, I highly doubt I would have been able to do anything other than put it down at the next available field.
Why is there seperate standards in this country for RPT and Charter categories? You're still a paying passenger if you're on a charter flight, so why should the rules instantly change?
Agreed that it is a big problem in that the fleet is now becoming a disgrace age wise. You're 1975 model Chieftain is now 35 years old!!
morno
Fair crack of the whip mate, I don't think mikewil is looking for a story. He asks a very sensible question which is becoming a real concern now. I feel very lucky that I never suffered an engine failure after take off in a piston twin, because unless I was empty, I highly doubt I would have been able to do anything other than put it down at the next available field.
Why is there seperate standards in this country for RPT and Charter categories? You're still a paying passenger if you're on a charter flight, so why should the rules instantly change?
Agreed that it is a big problem in that the fleet is now becoming a disgrace age wise. You're 1975 model Chieftain is now 35 years old!!
morno
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Morno - I don't see any logic in your argument about age. There are sizeable numbers of older aircraft still operating satisfactorily, and there is no reason they should not be. As all critical aircraft components are required to be inspected and overhauled regularly, why should age come into it?
Maintenance quality and pilot experience are the factors that regularly appear high on the list in aircrash summaries. As GG has outlined neatly, a well-trained, competent pilot in charge of an old aircraft is a far superior option, as compared to a trainee in a brand-new aircraft.
The PIC of this particular aircraft has demonstrated highly competent skills in being able to get his fully-loaded, crippled aircraft, back onto the deck in one piece, with no injuries or fatalities, and he needs to be lauded for his excellent airmanship.
All too often, engine failure shortly after takeoff results in a stall and the inevitable fatalities, when a PIC makes poor choices. In many cases, those poor choices can be sheeted home to lack of pilot skills and inadequate training.
Maintenance quality and pilot experience are the factors that regularly appear high on the list in aircrash summaries. As GG has outlined neatly, a well-trained, competent pilot in charge of an old aircraft is a far superior option, as compared to a trainee in a brand-new aircraft.
The PIC of this particular aircraft has demonstrated highly competent skills in being able to get his fully-loaded, crippled aircraft, back onto the deck in one piece, with no injuries or fatalities, and he needs to be lauded for his excellent airmanship.
All too often, engine failure shortly after takeoff results in a stall and the inevitable fatalities, when a PIC makes poor choices. In many cases, those poor choices can be sheeted home to lack of pilot skills and inadequate training.
The PIC of this particular aircraft has demonstrated highly competent skills in being able to get his fully-loaded, crippled aircraft, back onto the deck in one piece, with no injuries or fatalities, and he needs to be lauded for his excellent airmanship.
I see age as a major issue onetrack. No matter how good the maintenance, no matter how experienced the pilot in some circumstances, these aircraft rarely will perform as they were designed to in 1975. A bit of a twist here, small bend there, a patch on the airframe from some previous corrossion or other damage, years and years of operating in constant thermal turbulence (who says all the pilots who have flown them always brought the aircraft back to turbulence penetration speed?), all adds up enough to not get performance from these airframes.
Unfortunately, until we have a regulator and a government who see's this as an issue, there'll be no support for new airframes and the downward spiral of GA will continue.
morno
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 'Stralia!
Age: 47
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with you onetrack.
Not trying to talk myself up, having climbed a PA31 with 6POB, full mains and full bags, during a January afternoon at Lightening Ridge with one engine lost at 400 and still got it to climb to 1000 (slowly!) and turn around and land, I am convinced that age on a properly maintained aircraft should have minimal input into the end scenario.
A simple fact of life is that mechanical devices fail, sometimes even after best preventative maintanence has been applied. Ask QANTAS at the moment, I think they have some perspective on that. It is not in anyway limited to ANY type of aircraft or in most cases age. There are obviously execptions to every rule!!
I agree, and airmanship is one of the most important part of any operation that takes to sky, be it student/private/charter/rpt/whatever.
Disclaimer - I am not saying that I am awesome and everyone else that didn't is sh#t because of the above incident, I am only sharing my personal experience. Flame retardant suit on.
Not trying to talk myself up, having climbed a PA31 with 6POB, full mains and full bags, during a January afternoon at Lightening Ridge with one engine lost at 400 and still got it to climb to 1000 (slowly!) and turn around and land, I am convinced that age on a properly maintained aircraft should have minimal input into the end scenario.
A simple fact of life is that mechanical devices fail, sometimes even after best preventative maintanence has been applied. Ask QANTAS at the moment, I think they have some perspective on that. It is not in anyway limited to ANY type of aircraft or in most cases age. There are obviously execptions to every rule!!
and he needs to be lauded for his excellent airmanship.
Disclaimer - I am not saying that I am awesome and everyone else that didn't is sh#t because of the above incident, I am only sharing my personal experience. Flame retardant suit on.
Morno,
You have completely missed the point of a piston multi engine aeroplane below <5700kg. They were never designed nor intended to perform on one engine. The second engine was merely there to give you 'more options' and that philosophy has never changed.
A transport category aeroplane is bigger, faster and holds more people, therefore a riverbed, field or beach is not an option for a forced landing. With this in mind, the aeroplane requires performance with the loss of an engine as an off field landing will not generally be successful.
I still don't get why people bag the piston twins about not performing on one engine and condemn them to being 'unsafe' yet think a single engine aeroplane is perfectly acceptable. A piston twin may climb on one engine after takeoff in the right conditions or it may maintain altitude. The chances are however it won't, and a prudent Pilot would have briefed the scenario before take off, or studied the enroute aerodromes and terrain in the event of a significant failure.
You have completely missed the point of a piston multi engine aeroplane below <5700kg. They were never designed nor intended to perform on one engine. The second engine was merely there to give you 'more options' and that philosophy has never changed.
A transport category aeroplane is bigger, faster and holds more people, therefore a riverbed, field or beach is not an option for a forced landing. With this in mind, the aeroplane requires performance with the loss of an engine as an off field landing will not generally be successful.
I still don't get why people bag the piston twins about not performing on one engine and condemn them to being 'unsafe' yet think a single engine aeroplane is perfectly acceptable. A piston twin may climb on one engine after takeoff in the right conditions or it may maintain altitude. The chances are however it won't, and a prudent Pilot would have briefed the scenario before take off, or studied the enroute aerodromes and terrain in the event of a significant failure.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And the airliners that fly around this country have flown about three times as many hours as the 35 year old chieftain has.
There is much wisdom (and some nonsense) on this thread.
In the days of the two airline policy two mining company people were so important that they could not fly with the same airline. But when they got to Alice Springs they got out of the two separate airliners and got into a single pilot chieftain to fly to the mine site. It seems their importance diminished when there was money involved.
Morno, if legal requirements for charter wre the same as for RPT then GA would hardly exist and developement of this country would only occur near the coast. GA is just as important to this country as the airlines are. (except on the coast.) We have not built the raods yet.
But you have a valid point. The public does not know. An AOC looks very similar whether it is for a Boeing service or a 172.
There should be an AOC for a"light aircraft service" so the public knows what they are going to fly in. And they should be able to sell seats, publish schedules and advertise (without hiding it).
CASA have shut down many charter companies for purely commercial (not safety) reasons. I don't believe they have the right to do this. They are supposed to be a safety authority.
There is much wisdom (and some nonsense) on this thread.
In the days of the two airline policy two mining company people were so important that they could not fly with the same airline. But when they got to Alice Springs they got out of the two separate airliners and got into a single pilot chieftain to fly to the mine site. It seems their importance diminished when there was money involved.
Morno, if legal requirements for charter wre the same as for RPT then GA would hardly exist and developement of this country would only occur near the coast. GA is just as important to this country as the airlines are. (except on the coast.) We have not built the raods yet.
But you have a valid point. The public does not know. An AOC looks very similar whether it is for a Boeing service or a 172.
There should be an AOC for a"light aircraft service" so the public knows what they are going to fly in. And they should be able to sell seats, publish schedules and advertise (without hiding it).
CASA have shut down many charter companies for purely commercial (not safety) reasons. I don't believe they have the right to do this. They are supposed to be a safety authority.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anyone ever wondered why the RFDS can operate light aircraft safely in outback Australia, using modern aircraft and paying fair wages when much of the GA industry does not?
Is there a level playing field? Can other operators do what the RFDS does?
Why aren't GA operators still using new aeroplanes?
How many wealthy GA operators are there?
Why aren't GA operators using nice new aeroplanes and paying good wages.
Think about it!! Don't just bitch about everything in GA, think about why it is like it is and how it can be improved.
Is there a level playing field? Can other operators do what the RFDS does?
Why aren't GA operators still using new aeroplanes?
How many wealthy GA operators are there?
Why aren't GA operators using nice new aeroplanes and paying good wages.
Think about it!! Don't just bitch about everything in GA, think about why it is like it is and how it can be improved.
The world would be a better place if guys like MikeWill put time into reading texts instead of reading CASA rules. We know almost nothing about the incident, other than the pilot did his job well. There may have been other associated problems or weather or any number of things that caused the pilot to select landing immediately as the best option. Do some homework and ask informed questions.
Folks,
I wish more of you would read what The Green Goblin is saying, or better still, get a copy of CAR3/FAR 23 and see what the standards are, as printed.
The old saw: A light twin is a single with twice the chance of engine failure, is very close to the truth.
Somebody will correct me if I am wrong, but;
(1) the 1% positive gradient etc., applied under the old Australia certification rules, repealed in 1998, and;
(2) Only applied to IFR operation ---- early Aztec were "6" seat VFR. "5" seat IFR.
For all current aircraft, read the certified Manufacturer's AFM, as specified in the aircraft's TCDS ---- often called the POH --- a legal document, that will tell you what the current certified performance is supposed to be!!
Tootle pip!!
I wish more of you would read what The Green Goblin is saying, or better still, get a copy of CAR3/FAR 23 and see what the standards are, as printed.
The old saw: A light twin is a single with twice the chance of engine failure, is very close to the truth.
Somebody will correct me if I am wrong, but;
(1) the 1% positive gradient etc., applied under the old Australia certification rules, repealed in 1998, and;
(2) Only applied to IFR operation ---- early Aztec were "6" seat VFR. "5" seat IFR.
For all current aircraft, read the certified Manufacturer's AFM, as specified in the aircraft's TCDS ---- often called the POH --- a legal document, that will tell you what the current certified performance is supposed to be!!
Tootle pip!!
You have completely missed the point of a piston multi engine aeroplane below <5700kg. They were never designed nor intended to perform on one engine. The second engine was merely there to give you 'more options' and that philosophy has never changed
Bushy I do agree, GA is a vitally important part of outback Australia. I worked in it for several years so I have first hand experience. However I still think that until we have a government and regulator who understand this and who also understand that the way forward is not with 30-40 year old airframes, it's only going to get worse.
morno
whoooop1991 do you have an agenda I wonder??? Based in PMQ. You don't fly Pa31's for another "air ambulance" operator by any chance?
Why all the inuendo?
Lets get the facts straight the aircraft had been aquired by another company not associated with the Airtex group, it was operated by a company outside NSW.
With regard to the maintenace organisation they had CASA over last week for a through Audit AGAIN, with nothing found?
You may find that the cause of this incident has nothing to do with Airtex, the owner or the operating company - but a fourth party.
Discussion is good, but your statements simply are in the same vein as CASA's role as policeman and Judge all rolled up into one.
Why all the inuendo?
Lets get the facts straight the aircraft had been aquired by another company not associated with the Airtex group, it was operated by a company outside NSW.
With regard to the maintenace organisation they had CASA over last week for a through Audit AGAIN, with nothing found?
You may find that the cause of this incident has nothing to do with Airtex, the owner or the operating company - but a fourth party.
Discussion is good, but your statements simply are in the same vein as CASA's role as policeman and Judge all rolled up into one.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Australia
Age: 65
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Same ol' same ol'...
Mikewil,
Your question on a professional pilot's network will only get the answers it deserves. And it doesn't deserve much on here. The GG and other old fossils in previous posts have pretty much summed it up but you should really do some reading of your own. The POH of a light twin would be a good start. You don't have to even get out of your seat to get one, google. Read.
Your question on a professional pilot's network will only get the answers it deserves. And it doesn't deserve much on here. The GG and other old fossils in previous posts have pretty much summed it up but you should really do some reading of your own. The POH of a light twin would be a good start. You don't have to even get out of your seat to get one, google. Read.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Piss poor training etc
= Piss poor performance.
A couple of 'hard' facts for the bar room barristers.
a) Departed with a crook mag.
b) Mag fixed.
c) Conducted run up - mag problem noted and heard by 'other' airmen.
d) Took off any way.
e) No trouble check conducted.
f) Landed in a creek bed (in a f234g creek bed out there) with Dunlop's down. It beggars belief.
g) Ignored a fully serviceable bituminous road 1.5 off track.
h) Even in 1976 there was never, not ever a claim made that a brand new aircraft could make it OEI, except to the crash site!!.
Who taught them this rubbish and more to the point, who signed them out to line???.
Trouble check (spark, fuel or air). Rule 101.
Forced landing preparation . Rule 102.
Don't launch with a crook mag, lesson 99 pre solo .
A couple of 'hard' facts for the bar room barristers.
a) Departed with a crook mag.
b) Mag fixed.
c) Conducted run up - mag problem noted and heard by 'other' airmen.
d) Took off any way.
e) No trouble check conducted.
f) Landed in a creek bed (in a f234g creek bed out there) with Dunlop's down. It beggars belief.
g) Ignored a fully serviceable bituminous road 1.5 off track.
h) Even in 1976 there was never, not ever a claim made that a brand new aircraft could make it OEI, except to the crash site!!.
Who taught them this rubbish and more to the point, who signed them out to line???.
Trouble check (spark, fuel or air). Rule 101.
Forced landing preparation . Rule 102.
Don't launch with a crook mag, lesson 99 pre solo .
Quote:
You have completely missed the point of a piston multi engine aeroplane below <5700kg. They were never designed nor intended to perform on one engine. The second engine was merely there to give you 'more options' and that philosophy has never changed
Then why is there a rule which says they must? And why must be demonstrate it (with a near empty aircraft) in such things as base checks, MECIR renewals etc.?
You have completely missed the point of a piston multi engine aeroplane below <5700kg. They were never designed nor intended to perform on one engine. The second engine was merely there to give you 'more options' and that philosophy has never changed
Then why is there a rule which says they must? And why must be demonstrate it (with a near empty aircraft) in such things as base checks, MECIR renewals etc.?
In regards to proficiency checks and renewals, It is a required skill when flying a multi engine aeroplane that you must be able to suffer an engine failure, control the initial heading and maintain overall control of the aeroplane, run the drills, adopt Vyse (or V2 depending on type) and assess the performance (climb to circuit height, negative climb rate close throttles and land ahead etc). You must also be able to demonstrate enroute assymetric handling when flying a multi engine aeroplane. Just because in all probability the aeroplane may not perform, does not excuse the Pilot to not be able to control the aeroplane and fly it according to the situation. There are also other situations which may cause it to go assymetric, such as a prop overspeed/CSU failure, Turbo failure, mag failure, partial engine failure etc.
I think you are starting to clutch at straws morno. Don't expect something from a machine that was never meant to deliver it. I'd suggest making plans for its limitations, rather than one day shaking your head because you are descending wondering why.....
Verbal reasoning tests anyone?
Can someone please explain to me where in CAO 20.7.4 it says anything about aircraft certification?
The Order spells out the performance required of a CHTR aircraft:
No exemptions made for age or pilot skill. If you, as PIC, operated the aircraft in a weight/Temp/Pressure Height situation such that it did not meet these criteria, bend over, son. 
If your company failed to have a system in place that ensured you only departed within the limits defined in CAO 20.7.4, the your Chief Pilot should be bending over too.
Green Goblin if these rules mysteriously don't apply anymore, why am I asked at every MECIR renewal how to re-calculate approach minimas if the ambient conditions won't deliver the required performance?
THIRDLY where did MikeWil say he was a journo?
The Order spells out the performance required of a CHTR aircraft:
8 EN-ROUTE CLIMB PERFORMANCE
8.1 Multi-engined aeroplanes engaged in charter operations under the Instrument
Flight Rules or aerial work operations under the Instrument Flight Rules must
have the ability to climb with a critical engine inoperative at a gradient of 1%
at all heights up to 5 000 feet in the standard atmosphere in the following
configuration:
(a) propeller of inoperative engine stopped;
(b) undercarriage (if retractable) and flaps retracted;
(c) remaining engine(s) operating at maximum continuous power;
(d) airspeed not less than 1.2 VS.
8.1 Multi-engined aeroplanes engaged in charter operations under the Instrument
Flight Rules or aerial work operations under the Instrument Flight Rules must
have the ability to climb with a critical engine inoperative at a gradient of 1%
at all heights up to 5 000 feet in the standard atmosphere in the following
configuration:
(a) propeller of inoperative engine stopped;
(b) undercarriage (if retractable) and flaps retracted;
(c) remaining engine(s) operating at maximum continuous power;
(d) airspeed not less than 1.2 VS.
If your company failed to have a system in place that ensured you only departed within the limits defined in CAO 20.7.4, the your Chief Pilot should be bending over too.
Green Goblin if these rules mysteriously don't apply anymore, why am I asked at every MECIR renewal how to re-calculate approach minimas if the ambient conditions won't deliver the required performance?
THIRDLY where did MikeWil say he was a journo?